How cheered Libya's reeling opposition must feel now that they know that the White House is dispatching Secretary of State Clinton to meet with them during her trip to Tunisia and Egypt to have a post-revolutionary exchange of views.
As they lose ground and are surely being overrun, the freedom-fighters must also be overwhelmed with gratitude that NATO's Action Committee is meeting to exhaust as much time as may be needed to render a "no-fly zone" an exercise in futility.
And as Colonel Gaddafi's forces continue to hammer them, his opponents must be toasting to the generous statements of concern emanating from the White House asserting that all options are on the table to come to their rescue.
After all, we really do care that Gaddafi is killing his people with the aid of other megalomaniac dictatorships... don't we?
Let me venture a prediction. The tide of battle is bloodily turning against those who dared rebel against one of the most repressive regimes on earth.
The protesters who took on Gaddafi now likely face a very painful choice: can they afford to keep fighting and get gunned down by superior forces, or do they retreat and flee over the border into either Tunisia or Egypt, along with potentially other hundreds of thousands of Libyans who have every fear of being caught up in Gaddafi's dragnet of persecution against those who dared challenge his rule.
Anyone who believes that Gaddafi will accord his opponents a verifiable amnesty must be smoking hashish. He has prisons that make Iran's notorious Evin Prison look like a Madoff lockup.
The looming humanitarian crisis and the unforgiving tales of horror and tragedy that will emerge should the tide of battle become irreversible will be the coup de grace to the Obama administration's singular diplomatic inability to figure out a Libya strategy before any strategy was out of date -- a phase that does not do justice to the consequences that will surely follow.
While I have argued that America has no core strategic interest in the fate of Libya's internal revolution and that we must not make the mistake of thinking we did, the White House surely could have avoided the public spectacle of dithering and debating over what to do about Gaddafi.
Even if Libya's fate is not a core strategic interest warranting full scale engagement, a compelling moral obligation to oppose tyranny and humanitarian catastrophe opens up a wide range of lesser, but perhaps equally effective policy options.
Once a "no-fly zone" became a very debatable proposition justifiably opposed by the Pentagon, where were we on taking the next best advice I heard so far? A reasonable alternative from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry: crater Gaddafi's runways with a couple of well-placed bombs. Put a NATO insignia on the plane.
Who needs a no-fly zone if his fighter jets cannot take off? What is Gaddafi going to do? Argue to his supporters that America is fighting him? Who cares? It appears no one does except the White House.
Arabs know what this tyrant is all about. Who is the White House afraid of hearing from? Certainly not the Arab League (who have dared ventured to rally against one of their own)! Not the 54 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (which has also come out against Gaddafi). If the Obama administration is tied up in knots that Gaddafi could rally Libyans to oppose American imperialism and an alleged grab for oil, well, then, that is thin gruel indeed. Nothing factual would bear this out. It stretches reason for the White House to assert this as an excuse.
How about providing the freedom-fighters some help with their already acquired fire shoulder fired missiles which could take down the rest of Gaddafi's helicopters? Level the fighting field a bit... give the good guys at least a chance. Time's awaitin'!
Where is this White House's Charlie Wilson when Libya's freedom-fighters needed a senior voice capable of getting this administration off the couch? If the French think the Libyan opposition is deserving of legitimacy, why not us?
So, okay, if the White House concludes it does not have a dog in this fight, and then at least construct an adequate response to those who want boots on the ground.
It is patently insufficient for Press Secretary Carney to tell the world in one fashion or another that the administration is leaving all options on the table, and that the president's caution is a responsible course.
If that is the case, then let's be clear the unstated policy is to run out the clock on the fight. The realpolitik here is that the White House will wind up restoring ties with the winner in this struggle -- Mr. Gaddafi.
If Gaddafi is likely to prevail, and surely this is what the administration is slowly coming to believe, offer to provide humanitarian help and tell the freedom-fighters that there will be no timely American-orchestrated UN or NATO cavalry rescue. But at least give them a corridor to escape without Libya's highways becoming highways of death.
When lives are on the line, let's be honest with ourselves if we won't be publicly honest with those fighting in the desert. And then let's have a strategy to deal with the consequences of our policy decision. Making a disjointed policy up on the news cycle basis is no substitute for coherent strategy.
What troubles me most about our diplomacy so far is that this administration seems to lack the will power of its own convictions.
If the president is regularly urging Gaddafi to step aside, as he had so many weeks ago, well then, why was it France and not the U.S. that took the first official step to delegitimize the regime and formally recognize the Libyan provisional government?
Why didn't Secretary of State Clinton meet weeks ago with the head of the Libyan provisional council to assess for her and her colleagues in this administration the true nature of the opposition and whether assistance was warranted? Perhaps the White House would have been reassured that the opposition is legitimately deserving of support instead of protesting that the White House cannot provide help since it does not know who the opposition really is?
Why haven't we been more forceful in our efforts to prevent Gaddafi from importing mercenaries to help him turn the tide?
The more that the White House filibusters around the edges, the more it appears as if its Libya policy is one big alibi.
It all seems to add up to empty words and meaningless gestures. Toast that freedom-fighters!
Yesterday … Iraq and Afganistan.
Today … Libya.
Tomorrow … who’s next?
All without declarations of war by the U.S. Congress. All on borrowed money from our erstwhile enemy now creditor-ally, Japan, and our erstwhile ally now creditor-adversary, China.
All in the name of democracy. Are the protestors and rebels really democrats? Will the final consequences of our behavior be a series of other Irans? Egypt already is heading down that road. What do you say, Mr. Jimmy Carter?
Is there a better way? Yes (www.nationonfire.com).
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superior- ity. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match." Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy, p. 4.
This book should be required reading at all Department of State and all levels of DOD.
"Libya protests: Diplomatic optionsSince rebel forces began an uprising against Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi in mid-February, the international community has been weighing, and in some cases implementing, a wide range of measures to bring the conflict to an end.
The main bodies involved have been the UN - in particular the five permanent Security Council members, China, France, Russia, the UK and US - the European Union, and African and Arab regional organisations. Each has their own agenda - and concerns.
Some sanctions have been agreed at the UN but the issues of a no-fly zone, possible military action, and recognition of who represents Libya remain divisive. "
read the article . . . the US is not the only country in the world . . . . .
He doesn't want to repeat the mistakes of Carter and Bush who involved themselves in foreign wars and hostage crises and suffered for it
He is a hostage to history and incapable of action
The funny thing is a Libyan campaign would likely be short and successful
Such a war would benefit Obama the way it did Bush 1 in Kuwait and Bush 2 who was reelected easily in 2004
Obama does not have the vision to see this
Instead we will see a ghaddafi victory followed by a massacre which will stain America's reputation and make Obama appear weak
Bush 1 lost the election of 1992 and Bush 2 won 2004 with war mongering (alert level was raised to red at the time of the election for the first and thus far the last time in US history). Another important difference is that Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 whereas Gaddafi, unquestionably an odious dictator, and his ilk are fighting a civil war in Libya; precisely the situation you do not want to mess with.
There's no votes in it for his reelection
So he won't get involved
Cynical and unprincipled
Respectfully,
C
I look forward to your answers to my questions, but don't worry about the Mexico concern, the cartels are still very competitive and despite the deputy's concern, not an immediate worry.....I hope.
Respectfully,
C
Under the euphuism 'Hispanic Homeland' and 'Nation of Aztlan,' activists from numerous organizations including Mexican American Legal Defense and La Raza (The Race) activists are attempting to annex large portions of SW United States to Mexico. "Republica del Norte," the Republic of the North, which would include the present U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, plus southern Colorado, along with several current Mexican states, is "an inevitability" says Charles Truxillo, professor, University of New Mexico. He further states the new "Hispanic Homeland" should be brought into being "by any means necessary."
A 'Hispanic Homeland' could be written off as the work of extremists were it not for wide-spread support by Mexicans. A June 2002 Zogby poll of Mexicans found that a substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America is rightfully the territory of Mexico and that Mexicans do not need the permission of the U.S. to enter. The poll, a people search of appropriate persons, found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure.
However this offer and sentiment does not apply to the Palestinians.
Their freedom and aspirations , unfortunately, do not fit in to our present
hierarchical plan for Semitic tribes; freedom for some, oppression for others.
In my view, the lack of will power of his own convictions has pretty much characterized the entire tenure of Mr. Obama's presidency. Whether it's tax cuts for the rich, holding Wall Street accountable for the economic disaster of 2008, offering a public option alternative to the private insurance sector, allowing Americans to purchase imported medications at reduced costs, allowing middle-class employees to keep their current health insurance plans or protecting current Social Security benefits, Mr. Obama has never demonstrated the will power of his convictions. He has always caved or prematurely offered to compromise his principles when faced with opposition.
And if I were a betting person, I'd put good money on this: within weeks of Gaddafi's massacre of thousands of Libyans, certain unnamed, high ranking officials in the Obama administration will leak stories to Politico and other organizations blaming Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates for the administration's policy toward Libya. And they will swear that Obama was more than willing to unilaterally establish a no-fly zone over Libya but his hands were tied by the lack of support from members of his cabinet.
Two days suppression of ghaddafi's air force would win it
Supply the resistance with anti tank missiles
Game over